Retrieve the list of blockchains OpenSea indexes, including identifiers, display names, and architecture, to use as valid chain parameters for item endpoints.
List the chains OpenSea indexes. Returns every blockchain OpenSea indexes, with its identifier, display name, and architecture. The identifiers are the accepted values for the chain path parameter on the item endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the entire disclosure burden. It provides that burden decently: it says what the tool returns (every indexed chain with identifier, display name, architecture) and gives meaning to the returned identifiers relative to `item` endpoints. It does not mention ordering, filtering, or error behavior, but for a static enumeration that is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the primary operation, the second explains the output and its purpose. It is front-loaded, focused, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must disclose return shape itself, and it does identify exactly what appears in every entry. For a zero-argument, no-side-effect reference tool that is complete enough — an agent can safely select and invoke it with no further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to clarify in the schema. Instead, it adds value by explaining that the tool's returned identifiers are meaningful as path values for `item` endpoints, which is the semantic connection an agent actually needs to chain this call into later item requests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the chains OpenSea indexes.' It also names the returned fields (identifier, display name, architecture) and connects those values to the `chain` path parameter, making this tool's role distinct from the many other opensea_* item/collection tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the primary use case: calling this tool to obtain valid `chain` identifiers for item endpoints. It stops short of explicitly contrasting it with sibling tools or stating 'use this when a chain value is needed,' but the guidance is strong and unambiguous for a zero-parameter reference tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.